Also, the evidence seems to indicate that they were unwitting dupes who were misled by Russian agents. The goal of those agents was election interference, and the result of their involvement was election interference, but they couldn't tie that directly to intent on the part of the Trump campaign.

The Mueller Report argued that the evidence just indicated they were unethical, dishonest, manipulative morons, rather than unethical, dishonest, manipulative traitors. Small distinction, perhaps.

It is very obvious at this point that the only reason Mueller couldn't reach a higher standard of proof is due to a wide-ranging conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice that starts with the sitting President and Attorney General of the United States; if the Republican Party was not itself a criminal organization (with ties to a similar but better-entrenched organization running Russia) Trump and his cabinet would have been removed long ago.

"In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetentliars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)

Because that's not how impeachment works, and especially in the House, it's not a judicial process.

We really need to do a better job of teaching folks civics in highschool. The Judiciary oversees the Senate trial, but it's a wholly political, not legal (as in falls under the courts purview), process.

Because Democrats want relevant witnesses. Republicans want to call Hunter Biden, who is not a relevant witness and if there's credible allegations of wrongdoing they should be investigated and handled by the Justice Department. That would be the appropriate venue for these complaints, not this impeachment hearing.

But there's no case, which is why Trump never took action and why there's still no movement from the DoJ against Hunter Biden. It's the laziest of low effort strawmen.

Seriously, go back and take a civics refresher, dude.

So a civics lesson would explain how you decide what is relevant and what is not relevant? You just gave your opinion on which witnesses were relevant. Explain how a civics lesson would change what your opinion on what witnesses are relevant? It's not a judicial process, I never said it was. I also admit it was not a fair process, it was a wholly one sided process where they took the responsibility away from the judiciary and gave it to Schiff. Not sure where they teach that, but maybe you can link a civics note where they take the house impeachment away from the judiciary chairman and have a different committee chairman do it.

So a civics lesson would explain how you decide what is relevant and what is not relevant? You just gave your opinion on which witnesses were relevant. Explain how a civics lesson would change what your opinion on what witnesses are relevant? It's not a judicial process, I never said it was. I also admit it was not a fair process, it was a wholly one sided process where they took the responsibility away from the judiciary and gave it to Schiff. Not sure where they teach that, but maybe you can link a civics note where they take the house impeachment away from the judiciary chairman and have a different committee chairman do it.

It says in the constitution that the House has the right to impeachment, doesn't say that the Judicial Committee is the one that does it. Even though, the Judicial Committee did impeach Trump. The Intelligence committee just gave them the reasons for it by investigating it.

Were you like, sleeping the entire time that the Intelligence committee brought witnesses in, and made a report, then handed it off to the Judiciary committee?

So a civics lesson would explain how you decide what is relevant and what is not relevant? You just gave your opinion on which witnesses were relevant. Explain how a civics lesson would change what your opinion on what witnesses are relevant? It's not a judicial process, I never said it was. I also admit it was not a fair process, it was a wholly one sided process where they took the responsibility away from the judiciary and gave it to Schiff. Not sure where they teach that, but maybe you can link a civics note where they take the house impeachment away from the judiciary chairman and have a different committee chairman do it.

But it wasn't a one sided process. Both parties called witnesses. Or did you forget the Ambassador was a GOP witness? We'll wait while you ignore this reality and pick something easier to respond to.

You're just confused because all the things the GOP told you to believe and getting continually contradicted by reality.

Each time they are given a very thorough answer about the Mueller report and what it established.

Each time they peace out and decide to stop talking about it when they are overwhelmed by the facts.

Each time, 10-30 pages later, they come back and ask the same question, AGAIN.

I realize it's important for lurkers to see the truth, but I seriously don't get how people don't tire of these shenanigans. They're constantly posting conspiracy theories about Trump when doing this, which is against the forum rules, as is the thing they are doing which is explicitly against the rules, but nobody can call it out, because THAT is also against the rules, and you can report them, but no punishment is doled because "pOlItIcAl OpInIoNs"

At this point, aren't "wHaTeVeR hApPeNnEd To TrUmP rUsSiA cOnSpIrAcY?!?!?!?!!!!!!" posts just off topic at this point? Serious question. I realize Trump's ENTIRE team having communicated heavily with Russia for aid is tangentially related to impeachment, but in the context of just straight up denying anything happened simply because Trump was not removed over it (and thus, in their minds, is completely innocent of all crimes) it feels incredibly off-topic.

I'd like you to link me any time I have ever mention Trump and Russia in any sort of conspiracy. You can't because the only time I bring up Trump is to point out how obsessed people on the left are. Your broad statements and lies are pretty much standard for this board. I won't wait for your reply, as like everyone on this board, you demand links for the most inane things , yet never provide any of your own.

I also like how you call me a lurker because I do not post 9 times a day on this board like some of you do. I don't waste that kind of time arguing about minutia of an impeachment that is going to end in an acquittal. Everyone knows it will end in an acquittal and you guys go bonkers over the smallest thing. You know as sure as a partisan impeachment process happened that the other party will have a bipartisan acquittal.

I'd like you to link me any time I have ever mention Trump and Russia in any sort of conspiracy. You can't because the only time I bring up Trump is to point out how obsessed people on the left are. Your broad statements and lies are pretty much standard for this board. I won't wait for your reply, as like everyone on this board, you demand links for the most inane things , yet never provide any of your own.

The irony of the above is almost beyond compare. Please point to any lies or lack of links. Speaking of pot, you're kettling pretty hard. Worried about the information coming out this evening? Looks like Trump's goons might have been looking at assassinating a U.S. Ambassador. Whooops.

Originally Posted by TexasRules

I also like how you call me a lurker because I do not post 9 times a day on this board like some of you do. I don't waste that kind of time arguing about minutia of an impeachment that is going to end in an acquittal. Everyone knows it will end in an acquittal and you guys go bonkers over the smallest thing. You know as sure as a partisan impeachment process happened that the other party will have a bipartisan acquittal.

Then why are you so worried? Why are you and all the other Trumpkins going batshit crazy about something that is already predetermined. You have post after post in this thread about how silly the Impeachment has been, and yet you can't shut up about it. I wonder why.

So a civics lesson would explain how you decide what is relevant and what is not relevant? You just gave your opinion on which witnesses were relevant. Explain how a civics lesson would change what your opinion on what witnesses are relevant? It's not a judicial process, I never said it was. I also admit it was not a fair process, it was a wholly one sided process where they took the responsibility away from the judiciary and gave it to Schiff. Not sure where they teach that, but maybe you can link a civics note where they take the house impeachment away from the judiciary chairman and have a different committee chairman do it.

I know you're arguing in bad faith, but I'll take a crack at explaining this, since willful ignorance has to be fought on every level.

The Constitution doesn't require the Judicial Committee to investigate impeachable offenses. Impeachable offenses can arise from any investigation, from any committee. The Ukraine information dealt with highly classified national security intelligence, so the Intelligence committee handled it. If Dems had ever pursued the emouluments violations as impeachable offenses, Ways and Means investigations would have informed the Judicial Committee in drafting the Article of Impeachment. If Trump had lied under oath in a deposition, like Clinton did, then the Judiciary would have investigated that. If Benghazi had led to impeachable offenses against Obama, the investigation in the House Oversight Committee would have informed the House Judiciary.

As for calling for witnesses - that's just part of the political process. The Dems have the chair, they get to set the witness list. Incredibly, they called a bunch of extra witnesses they didn't initially subpoena, who the Republicans put on the list. Those witnesses burned the Republicans bad so now they must be some sort of deep state conspiracy, I guess.

Moreover, the process of impeachment is most akin to a grand jury indictment. The grand jury process is by no means fair to the defendant. It is done in secret, behind closed doors, the defendant is NEVER there, and the prosecution can call any witness and present any evidence without any real judicial backstop to deny the prosecution. They then ask if it's more likely than not that the defendant committed the crime, and then the grand jury indicts the defendant if they say yes. In this case, indictment = impeachment.

Keep in mind, though, that the process the Dems used was faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more open and transparent than the grand jury process on which it is based. It wasn't behind closed doors, defendants not only were invited to participate, but the defendant's political allies were in the room for EVERY. SINGLE. WITNESS, and the "prosecutors" (Schiff, etc) allowed the defendants to try and mount a defense, which they were in no way entitled to.

I agree, a simple civics lesson would solve a lot of issues right here. Namely, the criminal process. The next step is the trial, in which the defendant DOES have many rights, and the whole thing is presided over by a judge (literally the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS), and a jury of the President's peers sit and deliberate over the evidence. Except, in this case, the GOP wants to break from norms, and not call witnesses. That's like the jury saying they don't want to call witnesses. That should be on the prosecutors (the House Managers presenting the Articles of Impeachment), with guidance and backstopping from the presiding Judge (CJ Roberts).

"Robert F. Hyde: If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces"

Yikes. Turns out we weren't wrong when we called this the mafia presidency.

Jesus. I continually, to this day, after three years of his horror, find myself stunned by what un-indicted co-conspirator-in-chief does. Are we seriously starting to uncover evidence of a plot to kill a U.S. Ambassador?

First, and this is the least important of all of this, all of those "bro", "broski", "Holmes", and other pieces of slang are fucking cringe, especially considering the two men talking and what they are talking about.

Second, that's some damning shit right there. The president's own lawyer working with people for, what looks like, an assassination plot. This is insane.

Has Pelosi even released the articles of impeachment to the Senate yet? Why not?

She was very public about why she didn't send the articles of impeachment - the Republican Senators who are going to take an oath to act as fair unbiased jurors in the Senate trial were openly talking about how they were not going to be objective. Eg:

“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday while fielding questions about the upcoming trial.

So a civics lesson would explain how you decide what is relevant and what is not relevant? You just gave your opinion on which witnesses were relevant. Explain how a civics lesson would change what your opinion on what witnesses are relevant? It's not a judicial process, I never said it was. I also admit it was not a fair process, it was a wholly one sided process where they took the responsibility away from the judiciary and gave it to Schiff. Not sure where they teach that, but maybe you can link a civics note where they take the house impeachment away from the judiciary chairman and have a different committee chairman do it.

Man, you really don’t know American laws, don’t you? Are you actually American? You seem like you’ve failed in every aspect of understanding American laws.

Man, you really don’t know American laws, don’t you? Are you actually American? You seem like you’ve failed in every aspect of understanding American laws.

After reading his posts and seeing the trite he posts on The Hill, I'm pretty sure he's a paid Russian shill. It's best to ignore.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by eschatological

I know you're arguing in bad faith, but I'll take a crack at explaining this, since willful ignorance has to be fought on every level.

The Constitution doesn't require the Judicial Committee to investigate impeachable offenses. Impeachable offenses can arise from any investigation, from any committee. The Ukraine information dealt with highly classified national security intelligence, so the Intelligence committee handled it. If Dems had ever pursued the emouluments violations as impeachable offenses, Ways and Means investigations would have informed the Judicial Committee in drafting the Article of Impeachment. If Trump had lied under oath in a deposition, like Clinton did, then the Judiciary would have investigated that. If Benghazi had led to impeachable offenses against Obama, the investigation in the House Oversight Committee would have informed the House Judiciary.

As for calling for witnesses - that's just part of the political process. The Dems have the chair, they get to set the witness list. Incredibly, they called a bunch of extra witnesses they didn't initially subpoena, who the Republicans put on the list. Those witnesses burned the Republicans bad so now they must be some sort of deep state conspiracy, I guess.

Moreover, the process of impeachment is most akin to a grand jury indictment. The grand jury process is by no means fair to the defendant. It is done in secret, behind closed doors, the defendant is NEVER there, and the prosecution can call any witness and present any evidence without any real judicial backstop to deny the prosecution. They then ask if it's more likely than not that the defendant committed the crime, and then the grand jury indicts the defendant if they say yes. In this case, indictment = impeachment.

Keep in mind, though, that the process the Dems used was faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more open and transparent than the grand jury process on which it is based. It wasn't behind closed doors, defendants not only were invited to participate, but the defendant's political allies were in the room for EVERY. SINGLE. WITNESS, and the "prosecutors" (Schiff, etc) allowed the defendants to try and mount a defense, which they were in no way entitled to.

I agree, a simple civics lesson would solve a lot of issues right here. Namely, the criminal process. The next step is the trial, in which the defendant DOES have many rights, and the whole thing is presided over by a judge (literally the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS), and a jury of the President's peers sit and deliberate over the evidence. Except, in this case, the GOP wants to break from norms, and not call witnesses. That's like the jury saying they don't want to call witnesses. That should be on the prosecutors (the House Managers presenting the Articles of Impeachment), with guidance and backstopping from the presiding Judge (CJ Roberts).